Amec Construction has developed a special benchmarking system, which it claims is the most systematic method of checking space allocation in a design. The system is the brainchild of the design-and-build company鈥檚 value management team based in Stratford-upon-Avon, which comprises civil engineer Andrew Newton, architect Mark Boorman, plus the expertise of a wider group of 10 design and cost planning staff.
Newton and his team have devised a method of benchmarking buildings based on floor area.
The technique, which the company calls 鈥渇unctional benchmarking鈥� can be used to work out whether a design has enough 鈥� or too much 鈥� space allocated to, say, circulation or cellular offices.
The benchmarking technique has been developed over the past year, with tests carried out on existing buildings. The opportunity to prove its effectiveness as a design tool arose when Amec got involved in the design of a 拢70m research and development facility for a pharmaceutical company.
Two concept schemes had already been drawn for this project, but both had come in overbudget. Amec was asked to design a scheme that did not break the budget 鈥� in only 12 weeks. Newton knew that benchmarking the concept design based on the client鈥檚 brief against similar buildings would reveal whether or not the 拢70m budget was realistic. 鈥淲e knew that the area of a building is the largest factor that drives up the cost of a project,鈥� says Newton.
鈥淪o if we could benchmark a scheme to see if an appropriate area for each function has been provided, we could use that information to help eliminate unnecessary cost at the earliest possible stage,鈥� he says. This was only possible because Newton鈥檚 team had spent the past year amassing and analysing a database of building types: hotels, offices, warehouses, manufacturing facilities, laboratories and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, broken down into space allocation for each function within that building and the cost of that space.
The comparison with similar schemes highlighted significant differences in the space allowances for some functions. In particular, Amec鈥檚 benchmarking showed that the area allowed for the scientists to write-up their research was almost twice that allowed by the company鈥檚 major competitors.
鈥淚n fact, what had happened was that the building users within the client company had effectively come up with a wishlist for the areas they needed in the new building. Benchmarking gave us objective evidence to challenge the users by saying, 鈥極ther organisations are giving their scientists this much space 鈥� why do you need more?鈥欌�� After discussion with the client, write-up space was reduced.
The Amec team used the benchmarking information as a target setting and prediction tool to help put together a concept design.
Once the building layout had been produced, benchmarking was used to generate costs per square metre for functions such as a biology laboratory or a chemistry laboratory .
The skill of using the functional benchmarking system lies in ensuring that like-for-like is benchmarked. 鈥淵ou also have to understand the functional and operational aspects of a building,鈥� says Newton. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what gives our system its realism.鈥�
Simon Rawlinson, research partner in quantity surveyor Davis Langdon & Everest, supports benchmarking as the right approach, pointing out that it is already demanded by certain funding authorities, particularly in pharmaceuticals. He adds: 鈥淚n fast-moving sectors such as pharmaceutical research laboratories, it is important that data reflects changing client requirements.鈥�
